Thursday, January 12, 2012

Questions for the Canon Lawyers :Can Archbishop Allen Vigneron and Bishop Kevin Rhoades be considered Catholic if they refuse to affirm in public the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?

The Detroit Archdiocese Canon Lawyer who is employed in the Archdiocese seminary must also acknowledge that Canon Law demands that a bishop ( a juridical person) must be a ‘a Catholic’. A bishop to be ‘a Catholic’ must be able to affirm all Church teaching ,especially those which must be ‘firmly beleived’(Dominus Iesus on Other Religions).

Neither is the bishop of Detroit or Fort Wayne-South Bend willing to affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which is at the heart of the Real CatholicTV.com issue i.e the subject of the Jews in particular and non Catholics in general and their need to enter the Church for salvation.Michael Vorris has produced some good videos on this issue.

The bishops of Detroit and Forth Wayne-South Bend are not willing to affirm the dogma or say that Jews need to convert for salvation and now they are targeting Michael Vorris and his financier Marc Brammar for defending Catholic teaching.

As Shepherds they needed to inform Vorris and Brammar what was the precise moral or faith issue violated.They have not done so.

The Canon Lawyer of Detroit must know that the Archbishop there has no right to call himself Catholic, according to Canon Law, since he denies a magisterial teaching in public.

A simple question for the bishop of Detroit, which I asked Bishop Kevin Rhoades and he did not answer during the Robert Sungenis controversy was: Does the Catholic Church teach that non Catholic religions are not paths to salvation? (Dominus Iesus 20, CDF, Notification on Fr.Jacques Dupuis S.J etc).

How can these bishops not affirm the dogma outside the church there is no salvation and canonically still offer Holy Mass and remain as bishops? They can commit sacrilege just because they have the political support of the ADL and the pro abortion rabbis linked to Israel?

Why would Vorris and Brammar want a recommendation from these bishops in dissent?

Michal Vorris has affirmed th dogma now the next step is to tell the bishops that we do not know anyone on earth saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance.So they are not defacto exceptions to the dogma outside the church there is no salvation which Pope Pius XII called an ‘infallible statement’(Letter of the Holy Office 1949).

This was one of the public errors of Bishop Kevin Rhoades when he put it in writing on a website against apologist Robrt Sungenis, approved by the Catholics United for the Faith,Steubenville ,when Bishop Rhoades was the bishop of Harrisburg,Penn.

Questions for the Canon Lawyers.

1.Can Archbishop Allen Vigneron and Bishop Kevin Rhoades be conidered Catholic if they refuse to affirm in public the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?

2.Can they deny the dogma and still offer Holy Mass according to Canon Law?

3.If they assume that those cases saved in invincible ignorance (LG16) and with the baptism of desire (CCC) are explicitly known to us and so are an exception to the dogma then would this not be heresy and a denial of the dogma?

(Note Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church mentions those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire. We accept this is as a posibility (de jure). No magisterial texts claim that we defacto know these cases and so they are an exception to the dogma or the ordinary means of salvation).

-Lionel Andrades

It's a Free Country.. : A Catholic who rejects a defined dogma like outside the church no salvation is automatically excomunicated. He has no right to use the word 'Catholic'.

4 comments:

1. Refusal to affirm with trumpets blaring or a letter to be read at every mass is not a denial.

2. Unless you have direct evidence of denial, this is deeply hypothetical, on the order of "If they denied transubstantiation...".

3. We cannot know with certainty that almost anyone is saved inside the church. They may be denying their own baptism (are they doing it to be popular) or be in mortal sin and fail to repent. Saints take an extraordinary effort to canonize. Yet the church also never says any human is necessarily in hell.

Meanwhile, you have all but declared both bishops to be OUTSIDE the church and thus unsaved.

When there cannot be knowledge, at best there can be presumption, but you declare the bishops as destined for hell, maybe with Jews or protestants or maybe not.

Refusal to affirm with trumpets blaring or a letter to be read at every mass is not a denial.

Lionel:Refusal to affim the dogma or a Catholic teaching when asked is a denial.

2. Unless you have direct evidence of denial, this is deeply hypothetical, on the order of "If they denied transubstantiation...".

Lionel: I had personally written to Bishop Rhaodes when he was the bishop of Harrisburg,Penn. I also had written to other priests there asking them for answers to just three questions.

Those three questions were posted on the website Robert Sungenis and the Jews. It was not answered by an Emeritus President of Catholics United for the Faith nor by the person who maintained the blog and would be quoting the bishop often whom he knew personally.

3. We cannot know with certainty that almost anyone is saved inside the church. They may be denying their own baptism (are they doing it to be popular) or be in mortal sin and fail to repent.

Lionel: We know for certainity that those who are in the Catholic Church and die without any mortal sin on their soul are on the way to Heaven. May be via Purgatory,but on the way to Heaven.

Saints take an extraordinary effort to canonize. Yet the church also never says any human is necessarily in hell.

Lionel: Except for the saints the Church also does not say any human being is in Heaven. The Church does not say that Judas is in Hell and neither does the Church say that Judas is in Heaven.

Meanwhile, you have all but declared both bishops to be OUTSIDE the church and thus unsaved.

Lionel : The teachings of the Catholic Church apply to all Catholics. They apply to bishops, cardinals and the pope. The Sacrament of Confession is available for all. Since there is a possibility that all of us can lose the inheritance Jesus won for us.I am glad that you have used the phrase ‘all but’. They are not condemned by me since I am just a lay man. I am only pointing out to the teachings of the Church. It is for them to affirm the Catholic Faith.

When there cannot be knowledge, at best there can be presumption, but you declare the bishops as destined for hell, maybe with Jews or protestants or maybe not.

Lionel: The dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus says Jews and Protestants are destined to Hell since they have to convert into the Church for salvation. Dominus Iesus says all mankind needs to enter the Church for salvation. The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 affirms ‘the dogma’ the ‘infallible teaching’. This has been the teaching for centuries before and after Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14).

For #3, how do you know (with metaphysical certainty) that you ar A. "Inside the catholic church", and B. "Are in a state of grace" (not having an unconfessed mortal sin)? SSPX say they are the inside.

I also don't see a duty for the Bishops to answer to the laity, even one question, in ordinary ciircumstances. They have other duties including to maintain orthodoxy.

I would rather they issue a clear statement on the real presence and against contraception (which 70% of Catholics get wrong) instead of theologically subtleties.

3.If they assume that those cases saved in invincible ignorance (LG16) and with the baptism of desire (CCC) are explicitly known to us and so are an exception to the dogma then would this not be heresy and a denial of the dogma?

tz: For #3, how do you know (with metaphysical certainty) that you ar A. "Inside the catholic church",

Lionel:We know we are ‘inside’ the Catholic Church when we have received the baptism of water and have Catholic Faith and are in a state of grace, having confessed any known mortal sin.

tz:I also don't see a duty for the Bishops to answer to the laity, even one question, in ordinary ciircumstances. They have other duties including to maintain orthodoxy.

Lionel:In this case they have a duty to answer the questions since not only is their orthodoxy but the simple Catholic Faith is not being affirmed and it is a scandal.

tz:I would rather they issue a clear statement on the real presence and against contraception (which 70% of Catholics get wrong) instead of theologically subtleties.

Lionel:Your comment indicates that there is confusion on this subject. So it is nevessary that they issue a statement.The issue is very simple and their clarification would remove the ‘theological subtleties’ that you assume are there.The issue is related to the Real Presence since a bishop who denies the faith on this issue according to Canon Law is not to offer Holy Mass or receive the Eucharist.